No strawman to the REAL argument here - which is a political argument pressing policy agendas, NOT the "scientific" one being flogged as a judas goat. That the current understanding and model performance lacks adequate certainty and credibility to support the radical and precipitous diversions of scarce societal resources being advocated by the warmistas is hard, cold political FACT and CERTAIN REALITY you guys would do better to get over yourselves on, face up to, and quit trying to hand-wave away.

Explain why they're currently off by a factor of two and fix them instead of whining about "deniers" who are simply pointing at your half-naked Emperor.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>This new report says that models may be 20% too high over coming decades- not "wildly inaccurate". Exaggeration.

"May be?" "Over the coming decades?" Getting a bit ahead of ourselves, aren't we? Whence this fantastic faith in a coming sea change (no pun intended) in the future validity of these models, when you cannot and will not acknowledge their crap performance in the here & now, absent agreement on why they're performing poorly in the near-term, other than to whine "it's hard and complicated?"

Let's start with the clear and present fact the models are out of whack by a factor of two over what is becoming a 2-decadal period, and all we've got is speculative theories why.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>Estimates of climate sensitivity have always contained uncertainty- this is clearly stated. Straw man argument ... Scientists have always admitted that ocean circulation patterns are hard to model and contain uncertainties. Straw man. There is a debate in the scientific community about what will happen over the next few years. Some scientists believe the deeper ocean could stop absorbing heat and we might not see reduced warming at all. Straw man and ignoring the complexities of the argument.

Perhaps in the "scientific" debate being used as cover and a judas goat for a variety of political agendas - but in that - the REAL world, the REAL argument, no straw man at all - UNCERTAINTY is the central point in the POLITICAL argument that's really at issue here. And the models and now clearly exaggerated jeremiads based on them lack credibility.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>There is debate over what will happen in the long term. Some scientists believe the climate sensitivity figure needs to come down by 30%; others put more trust in the paleoclimate data. Straw man and ignoring the complexities of the deabte.Even the scientists who think the climate sensitivity figure needs to come down still recognise that we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we need to reduce emissions.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/ma...You consistently ignore what science and scientists say in favour of your own stupid straw man arguments.You're a ranting ideologue blind to rational evidence.Your advice is foolish and dangerous to future generations.You're fired!

Your opinion.

As far as the long-term is concerned, mine is that wealth creation in the world - especially the un- and under-developed world - is going to be FAR more critical to enable them to cope with coming climate change than the dog's breakfast of mostly silly and completely impractical reactionary political agendas being flogged by AGW jihadis in the name of "we must do something now!!"

You want people to listen to the science? Get out of denial yourself, acknowledge the models are sucking right now at matching observed data, and fix them.

Hansen noted that in determining responsibility for climate change, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate is determined not by current emissions, but by accumulated emissions over the lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By this measure, the U.K. is still the largest single cause of climate change, followed by the U.S. and Germany, even though its current emissions are surpassed by the Peoples Republic of China.[Wikipedia]

Article and data 3+ years out of date. Irrelevant. The models have just continued to perform more poorly in predicting actual recorded AGT rise since then. Something's clearly wrong with the AGT surface data and/or the models - and all we have from "the science" (the objective, honest ones) are some plausible speculation on the reasons why.

Why soooooo hard for you to admit this simple fact?

Your evaluation of the LATEST and CURRENT data and model predictive reliability I posted?

(... crickets ...)

I would advise you to read and learn yourself - but that of course would be wasted on a closed-minded believer in model infallibility like you. You have a different agenda - and it has nothing to do with "science" - your agenda here is clearly tied up in issues of your own psychic welfare.

Global warming occurs during the fourth plague as described in Revelation 16:8,9 in the King James Version of the Bible:And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

<quoted text>Article and data 3+ years out of date. Irrelevant. The models have just continued to perform more poorly in predicting actual recorded AGT rise since then. Something's clearly wrong with the AGT surface data and/or the models - and all we have from "the science" (the objective, honest ones) are some plausible speculation on the reasons why.Why soooooo hard for you to admit this simple fact?Your evaluation of the LATEST and CURRENT data and model predictive reliability I posted?(... crickets ...)I would advise you to read and learn yourself - but that of course would be wasted on a closed-minded believer in model infallibility like you. You have a different agenda - and it has nothing to do with "science" - your agenda here is clearly tied up in issues of your own psychic welfare.Good luck with that.

You are twisty Teddy.

You post without any evidence your fossil fuel propaganda. Read what I post to learn something.

Global warming occurs during the fourth plague as described in Revelation 16:8,9 in the King James Version of the Bible:And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

But as a rhetorical argument, your post is tosh, and misdirected. I have posted NOTHING advocating "skeptic" predictions.

You are reduced to putting bullshyte words in my mouth rather than simply acknowledge that what I DID post about the latest reported (in)accuracy of current climate model predictions (off by a factor of 2 vs. recent actual decadal AGT rise data), with attributed source, is simple fact.

<quoted text>Tornadoes have always existed, they aren't evidence for man made global warming. If we have the ability to change Earth's climate, why are we incapable of stopping or steering storms like this?

If you prod a bull in the goolies with a sharp stick, why can't you pacify it with kind words as it gores you on the ground?

<quoted text>Tornadoes have always existed, they aren't evidence for man made global warming. If we have the ability to change Earth's climate, why are we incapable of stopping or steering storms like this?

I posted earlier: Our daily man-made emissions constitute 90 million tons of heat-trapping ghg's with power of 400,000 Hiroshima explosions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.